Doug, you are missing the logic, albeit I admit it's an emotional subject. According to Talmud, a fetus is not a human life until it is born, i.e. the "head is delivered". Therefore, "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to abortion; the mother is not taking an innocent life because having not been born, by definition, it is not a life. Until you are "born" you have no rights. Those dead girls you reference according to Jewish faith had acquired no rights since they had not been born. In essence, you are taking property according to the Talmud. While it's not right to take property, property is different than taking a life.

As for me, as I said, I am ambivalent on the subject. Therefore I defer to women. It's their body; their choice IMHO.

No JDN you are twisting a technicality ("not full personhood" under "Jewish Law") into a genocidally wrong conclusion. That you can say what is alive and human is not human life does not contain logic, it contains self deception assuming you even believe what you post. You refuse to acknowledge what was already posted by people you defer to and you misquoted what you linked. Trivializing 163 million dead does not put you in logical or moral equivalence with Rachel who I linked and quoted in effect called abortion evil (why would it be evil if you are not killing human life) and it is in direct contradiction to your own citation - why would it "frustrate the propagation of more people" (that is a tortured way of saying kill) if it does not end a human life. Your feigned logic is more akin to the writings and teachings of different time that would argue the justification of killing negro slaves, Jews or infidels where others have denied recognition for what is obviously human life. Jewish Law does NOT argue that there is nothing of value in the womb and no loss in killing it as you do. That is simply untrue.

We do not live in a theocracy (and you and I are not Jewish) so why would Jewish Law be controlling if you could get it right? The waste of time theme continues.

If you insist on refuting what Rachel posted, you might answer the question begging nine times in her post on the subject: The "mother" in the abortions is the mother of a WHAT?? If not a human life, is there a raccoon in there? A reptile? A rodent? What is it? It has has distinct DNA, fingerprints, and a beating heart and you say it is "property" - like a book? In a moral and a civilized society? With 21st century scientific evidence with ultrasound photography available? Even after we know it could live and grow outside the womb? A slave was property too, in the eye of those who justified that, not a human life. Killing a Jew was moral(?) in Nazi society because ..... why? No life of value was lost? FYI, they were wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go ahead and continue to "not discuss" this. So far, I agree with you that you haven't.

I'll try to "not discuss" this a little more since I know this subject is important to you. I think both sides have merit and an exchange of ideas is always useful. But I'm not refuting what Rachel posted, I'm merely confirming what Rachel posted.

I personally am not saying when life begins (I'm still wrestling with that issue); however the Talmud and therefore Rachel said that life begins when the head of the baby is delivered. That's rather clear; it's symmetrical, without ambiguity; I like that.

I am not trivializing 163 million so called dead, nor am I discussing how China should have solved their population explosion. I don't know the answer to that, but something drastic had to be done.

As for "evil" Rachel said and you quoted, "I just see legal abortion as a much less evil than illegal abortion". Rachel may disapprove of abortion for herself, but acknowledge the right of another woman to have an abortion. Further, done legally is superior and safer than done illegally. Also, theft is evil. But it is not the taking of a human life. The Talmud acknowledges that there is something of value in the womb and provides for civil recourse, similar to if I took your property. But it is not a human being according to the Talmud. Again, human life according to traditional Judaism by definition begins when the baby is born, i.e. the "head is delivered". Rachel pointed that out on this forum; a position different than yours. That's one of the reasons we have this forum; to debate different viewpoints.

I agree, there is absolutely no reason why Jewish Law needs to be controlling here in America. Nor am I suggesting that it be. However, before I entered this discussion, you introduced Rachel into the conversation, "Congress could take positions laid out by Rachel" and I was merely following up, pointing out that Rachel's position, and Judaism's position, quite different than yours, is that human life does not exist until the baby is born.

Further, if I recollect, Rachel thought, while acknowledging that it is a very difficult decision, it should be the choice of the woman. I tend to agree with Rachel on this matter.

A longer version of repetition, still with falsehoods, still refuting nothing I wrote. I asked you to go back and read what she wrote in its entirety and you refuse. Then tell me I'm wrong about what she wrote. Great discussion (sarc.).

"One nice thing I've observed about Jewish theological thought is how human life trumps other things. As an example, at one time, the only source of insulin was from pigs. The ruling I know of basically said keeping kosher was important, but keeping diabetics alive was more important. Somehow, I doubt they'd look at 4D images of very young fetuses and rule that they were not human."

"Judging by Jon, the world would be improved by more people with Down syndrome, who are quite nice, as humans go." (George Will below) First a quote from the previous posts in the thread with my comment: ----------"...I doubt they'd look at 4D images of very young fetuses and rule that they were not human."

Besides images, we have the magic of time travel. We don't have to look at a developing growth inside the womb and wonder what it is or will become. We already know, it becomes it's own unique, alive, human family member. We all went through the process, living in the womb, minus the violent ending. (My own botched-abortion daughter now has over 740 facebook friends, was highly recruited for sports and music and is heading off to one of the top local small colleges on an academic merit scholarship, from a blob once scheduled for 'termination'.) It is NOT some mystery or controversy that what you see in the image is a developing family member in need of your protection.----------

Will: "This era has coincided, not just coincidentally, with the full, garish flowering of the baby boomers’ vast sense of entitlement, which encompasses an entitlement to exemption from nature’s mishaps, and to a perfect baby. So today science enables what the ethos ratifies, the choice of killing children with Down syndrome before birth. That is what happens to 90 percent of those whose parents receive a Down syndrome diagnosis through prenatal testing.

Which is unfortunate, and not just for them. Judging by Jon, the world would be improved by more people with Down syndrome, who are quite nice, as humans go. It is said we are all born brave, trusting and greedy, and remain greedy. People with Down syndrome must remain brave in order to navigate society’s complexities. They have no choice but to be trusting because, with limited understanding, and limited abilities to communicate misunderstanding, they, like Blanche DuBois in “A Streetcar Named Desire,” always depend on the kindness of strangers. Judging by Jon’s experience, they almost always receive it.

The same George Will piece above ran in our local paper and I noticed a letter to the editor later in follow up said that his joy and pride should not mean that the other 90% should be judged in the decisions they made to kill off these imperfect, innocent family members developing in the womb upon learning of their defects. My view: Yes, you will be judged for that.------------In other news, some states require in the abortion process a viewing of the ultrasound and a listening to the heart beat and a lady is donating iPods to the clinics to make that 'listening' less informing.http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/03/abortion-backers-give-women-ipods-to-drown-out-ultrasound/

Are you saying there should be no regulations about doctors informing patients before a procedure or just not on this one- because killing a human heartbeat is shameful? I kind of like it your way, no government regulations whatsoever on doctors and medicine. We are all big kids now. We can do our own due diligence?

Wouldn't a woman with a conscience want to know forever that she got the fetus in early pregnancy removed before it had a heartbeat - verfied by sonagram?

Why would a woman without a conscience, like the one Doonesbury demeans, give a rat's ass if it had a heartbeat or not. If you have no conscience, no respect whatsoever for unborn life, there is no shame.

Does the 24 waiting period for the clinic procedure drive her instead to stabbing it in the back alley with the coat hanger? (The Court ruled that it does not.) That, you might recall, was a main objection of Rachel's to prohibiting abortion. They will abort, legal or not. Responsibility can not be taught or learned. (?)

Funny that when you agree with the court like legalized abortion, it is right because 'the Court ruled on it', but these reasonable restrictions on abortions were upheld by the same court. Yet you object and call it GOP (We The People) inflicting shame (sharing medical information).

With logic one might think that being fully informed would help to prevent the shame after the fact that so many experience. What do you think of THAT for a women's right, a law requiring women to be fully informed before killing their young. Ooops, you already answered it. You oppose it and show no deference for a ruling already made by the highest Court in the land on the matter, not the Texas GOP, the U.S Supreme Court. ----As an aside, the Democrat party controlled Texas for a hundred years up through the mid 1990s. The GOP doesn't control Texas or write the laws, the people do. Dems lost control, FYI, because the national party went nuts on issues like this one.

Are you saying there should be no regulations about doctors informing patients before a procedure or just not on this one- because killing a human heartbeat is shameful? I kind of like it your way, no government regulations whatsoever on doctors and medicine. We are all big kids now. We can do our own due diligence.

We disagree; I don't think it's "shameful". As for due diligence, I go back to my point; it's between the Doctor and Patient. IF the doctor/patient want a sonogram, fine. If they want to listen to a heartbeat, even make a recording thereof, fine. But after a simple discussion if both doctor and patient decide to proceed without a sonogram and/or needlessly listening to a heartbeat, that would seem fine to me too.

Wouldn't a woman with a conscience want to know forever that she got the fetus inearly pregnancy removed before it had a heartbeat - verfied by sonagram?No - it should be her choice.

Why would a woman without a conscience, like the one Doonesbury demeans, give a rat's ass if it had a heartbeat or not. If you have no conscience, no respect whatsoever for unborn life, there is no shame. What's the problem?The only "shame" involved is in the medically unnecessary insulting and invasive procedure. There is no "shame" in an abortion. I do not think any less of someone who has had an abortion nor should they think any less of themselves.

Funny that when you agree with the court like legalized abortion, it is right because 'the Court ruled on it', but these reasonable restrictions on abortions were upheld by the same court. Yet you object and call it GOP (We The People) inflicting shame (sharing medical information).

With logic one might think that being fully informed would help to prevent the shame after the fact that so many experience. What do you think of THAT for a women's right, a law requiring women to be fully informed before killing their young. Ooops, you already answered it. You oppose it and show no deference for a ruling already made by the highest Court in the land on the matter, not the Texas GOP, the U.S Supreme Court. Citation please. To my knowledge the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the Texas matter. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did referencing the following case. Further, I am entitled to disagree with the Court's ruling, as you do on other matters, but of course if I lived in TX I would adhere to it. That said, I find the law terribly insulting and intrusive. Doonesbury said it better.http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-appeals-court-rules-texas-abortion-law-is-constitutional-20120110,0,5743908.storyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey----

"nor should they [women who have had abortions] think any less of themselves." You write so freely and confidently about what you know nothing. You oughtta ask JANE ROE about her decision before driveling about who ought not feel what and who doesn't need accurate information to make life and death decisions. http://www.dailycampus.com/2.7440/once-a-champion-of-pro-choice-jane-roe-speaks-on-change-of-heart-1.1054507#.T6b7OtmIhdg (text below)

Yes I do in fact openly question and oppose MANY supreme court decisions. You OTOH often say or imply that because it was ruled, that is that. Settled law. Good that we are back to questioning, not acting like sheep. Texas drew up its law within the guidelines set up by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. If you know otherwise, please cite.

"Doonesbury said it better." - No. Doonesbury said straw. They oppose their own caricature of the law, right out of hating Sarah Palin for what Tina Fey said. Now you have introduced shame into the discussion when the law was about making sure it is informed decision on such a grave matter. That is good straw, but the Chief Judge of the 5th Circuit said it better. It's "settled law" now.

You see no shame because you see no life there or think they don't see it. Or hear it. What other settled science do you deny?

Do you oppose the Obama rule, killing it out of the womb as long as you intended to kill it in the womb?

Why do proponents say "safe, legal and RARE? Why do they say 'I am personally opposed' but politically in favor of abortion rights? If there is no life, no killing, what is there to personally oppose? You don't even admit it should be rare or any personal qualms about it. That puts you WAY out in the extreme.

What about the Mac plan accepting both women's rights AND life. Allow her to have it removed but not allow her to kill it. It's not her baby if it's not a baby. Maybe someone else wants it.

No qualms even about killing black babies in America at 3 times the rate of white babies? No objections to the killings in Asia, not just China, for gender selection purposes? That is not Roe v. Wade, settled law, that is purely a matter of right vs. wrong and you say right. Unbelievable.

How about killing it for up to 9 months from conception even if born.

Which is more human, an 8.9 month baby in a womb killed legally or a 24 week born preemie that survives?

If you are GOD maybe you know the answer to that?

How do you feel about the choice your own mom made? If not your life, how about hers, that she was allowed to live. Not a shred of a feeling about that? Good grief.

As stated previously, if you can't accept reason and you won't accept science and we have no principles whatsoever in common, not even a base level, God fearing, even atheist level of respect for human life, why would we hope to find any common ground on any policy or candidate?------------------------------

Norma McCorvey speaks in front of a packed house Wednesday at the Student Union Theatre.

In 1973 Norma McCorvey - better known as "Jane Roe" from Roe vs. Wade" - won the landmark case that legalized abortion in the United States. Wednesday night in the Student Union theatre, she spoke out on why she now feels that decision was a mistake. Brought to UConn to speak about her experiences by the UConn Pro-Life club, McCorvey, who had spent most of her life working in abortion clinics and championing a woman's right to choose, was clear that she felt she had made a mistake and was now a changed woman. She was heard by an audience that included students, community members and clergy members.

McCorvey took to the podium a bit uneasily but she warmed up the audience with her subtle dry wit, reminding them at times, "Its' ok to laugh."

Her story began the day an anti-abortion group called "The Rescuers" moved into the space next door to the fourth and final abortion clinic she worked at. She recounted traumatic tales from the clinic including trifles with the abortionist, nearly full-term women and girls as young as 14 seeking abortions.

McCorvey said that her mind was changed by one particular client who came in. The woman was nearly full-term and seeking an abortion when McCorvey questioned her as to why it had taken her so long to come to this decision. The woman replied that she was pregnant with a girl and had decided that she wanted a boy instead. McCorvey said that two weeks after the procedure, "I could feel she had some kind of torment, but I didn't know what it was called."

Missy Pfohl, a 7th-semester animal science major, said that "her personal accounts of working in the abortion clinic" was the most moving part of her the speech.

Going forward from those stories, McCorvey began to talk about her radical change of heart, which came with her beginning to consort with the anti-abortion group next door. She said she was moved by how open and content they always seemed and told a particular story of how one of the anti-abortion worker's daughters would come and watch "Jeopardy!" with her at the front desk of the abortion clinic. She then began attending church with that particular family and said that her heart was truly changed by scripture.

When discussing her conversion, she also made a reference to her years of alcohol and narcotic abuse as well as various suicide attempts that she said was a reaction to the "horrors" she witnessed in the abortion clinics, calling them "grim places." Also much of her emotional plight, she said came from the guilt of being "Jane Roe."

"It wasn't any fun being Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade," she said. "I've been shot at and threatened."

She said she was misled by her lawyers and did not know that her involvement in the case would result in a national law legalizing abortion.

"I'm glad she came," said Lauren Colello an 8th-semester molecular and cellular biology major. "She showed that it's important to keep questioning yourself and to be humble."

Over at Politics Now, our David Lauter has a fascinating deconstruction of a Gallup poll showing that the share of Americans who call themselves “pro-choice” on abortion has hit a record low of 41% while 50% now call themselves “pro-life.” Lauter explains why that factoid (resultoid?) is not a sure guide to Americans' views about whether abortion should be legal in certain circumstances:

"On the issue of when abortions should be legal, Americans’ views have moved very little, Gallup’s numbers show. The share of Americans who believe that women should be able to legally obtain an abortion under at least some circumstances now is 77%. That figure has bounced more or less randomly between 76% and 84% over the past 12 years. Similarly, the percentage who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances has fluctuated between 15% and 22% in Gallup polls since 2001. It now stands at 20%."

Now for the next question: Should people continue to refer to the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements? Over the years journalists have struggled over whether these terms are neutral placeholders for wordier formulations such as "pro-abortion rights" and "antiabortion." But in political discourse generally I think they have established themselves as pseudo-proper names, rather like Democrat or Republican.

Mention the "pro-life movement" and most everyone visualizes someone carrying a sign calling for life to be protected from the moment of conception, maybe even in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the mother's life. Likewise, the term "pro-choice movement" conjures up a spokeswoman for NARAL or Planned Parenthood, not someone who reluctantly endorses abortion in rare and extreme circumstances.

One reason I think these terms will survive as movement descriptors is that activists on both sides of the abortion issue tend to be purists (or extremists, if you prefer). It's hard to rally a crowd on behalf of a finely textured position such as "legal in the first trimester, illegal after that except for rape or incest or the likelihood of this birth defect but not that one."

The full Gallup poll results will be spun by both "pro-" groups as proof that one unnuanced view or the other is closer to majority status. No surprise there. The abortion wars have always included a war of words.

"The share of Americans who believe that women should be able to legally obtain an abortion under at least some circumstances now is 77%."

Straw question answered. People aren't outraged about the number of medical procedures performed to save the life of the mother and no serious proposal lacks that exception, and others. There isn't a serious political movement to crack down on irresponsible choices of rape and incest victims.

Pro-life, FYI, means that some people are outraged about the 98% of abortions in the US that are committed for convenience reasons. People are outraged by the hundreds of millions killed off in Asia for gender choices. Some are actually offended that funded taxpayers abortions in the US to kill off black babies at more than 3 times the rate of white babies. Is that equal rights or affirmative action, in the morally bankrupt, abortion for any reason movement?

"legally obtain an abortion under at least some circumstances now is 77%"

Straw question answered. People aren't outraged about medical procedures to save the life of the mother and no serious proposal is missing that exception. There isn't a serious political movement to crack down on irresponsible choices of rape and incest victims. Pro-life, FYI, means that some people are outraged about the 98% of abortions in the US that are committed for convenience reasons. People are outraged by the hundreds of millions killed off in Asia for gender choices. Some are actually offended that funded taxpayers abortions in the US to kill off black babies at more than 3 times the right of white babies. Is equal rights or affirmative action in the morally bankrupt, abortion for any reason movement.

Actually, the VALID question is answered. ""legal in the first trimester" is what most of that 77% are in favor of. You conveniently left out that part to which my posted article referred to.

As for gender choice in Asia, well China had to do something; it was a hard call, but doing nothing was worse; they would have imploded. Looking at their economic success, maybe they made the right decision. I'm not sure it's our place to tell China what to do about an internal matter.

As for black abortions, with no offense, most on site would argue as a group blacks are disproportionately on public assistance in some way. Do you really want that many more unwanted babies that you will have to support? And no one is "killing off" anyone. No one has been born yet. It's a voluntary procedure. Frankly, it's cost effective for everyone.

The first trimester, plus rape or incest, danger to the mother, some medical birth defect conditions, that is what the 77% in favor of abortion are talking about. That is also my position.Valid fact: America is still overwhelming (77%) in favor of abortion.

Although its good fun to point out that the abortion movement was founded in great part for eugenistic reasons (i.e. minimizing the number of black babies) I am not sympathetic to using the "disparate impact" argument that the Left loves so much-- though of course one may note hypocrisy that the Left does not note the disparate impact here.

Crafty, Yes, I am pointing out the hypocrisy. That is not obviously not the core of the objection. The logic goes both ways. If this is such a good thing, black women are benefiting disproportionately, affirmative action at its best! The left amazingly worries that we execute too many black serial killers, but not killing too many black innocents.

(JDN) "As for gender choice in Asia, well China had to do something; it was a hard call, but doing nothing was worse; they would have imploded. Looking at their economic success, maybe they made the right decision."

- To kill off those least able to defend themselves. Your callousness is beyond my comprehension.

(JDN) "I'm not sure it's our place to tell China what to do about an internal matter."

- Yes, what business is it of me to COMMENT on the policies of the legitimately elected government of the Peoples Republic of China. Again, your values and mine are different if not opposite. I wasn't arguing jurisdiction Asia (always return with straw), I was writing about my free speech expression of the difference between RIGHT and WRONG and the outrage that a lot of other people showed. What you miss completely is the original post was about the momentum of public opinion away from your view. Rebuttal would be that it is an outlier poll, wrong in methodology or from a biased organization, Gallup??

(JDN) "As for black abortions, with no offense, most on site would argue as a group blacks are disproportionately on public assistance in some way. Do you really want that many more unwanted babies that you will have to support? And no one is "killing off" anyone. No one has been born yet. It's a voluntary procedure. Frankly, it's cost effective for everyone."

Unwanted babies? Voluntary procedure? Killing black babies at three times the rate of white babies is cost effective?? It is the adult not the unborn who is guilty of unwanting. It's the born parents that we have disproportionately screwed up with our culturally destructive policies, not innocent unborn life. There is no data to show that a black baby has any other disproportionate disadvantage prior to birth. I had a beer last night with one that turned pretty well. I find the view that we are better off without them, instead of having an obligation to fix what is wrong in the neighborhood, repugnant, and racist. The unborn 'little one', black, white, Down, or other, has the exact same instincts and desire for survival as any born human life or of any other species. Every day, not every trimester, the little one looks more and more like the mother and the father. Do you have scientific or medical information to the contrary. If so, please post.

I have no idea, after all that is discussed, how you have no awareness that there is another life involved.

(JDN) "The first trimester, plus rape or incest, danger to the mother, some medical birth defect conditions, that is what the 77% in favor of abortion are talking about. That is also my position."

'Trimesters' come from 1970s, science-denial thinking. Human life does not develop in trimesters. Why not compromise and instead set a standard such as the right to kill it off prior to something distinct and more rational like a detectable heart beat?

These would be good questions for state legislatures, if the people in their states, through their representatives, had the right to vote on life and death public policies. Have you ever answered Crafty's point that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided law?

Yeah, but this "affirmative action" is saving money; you should be happy. And I'm not killing anyone; as Rachel pointed out, life begins at birth. Another "life" is not involved. As Rachel also pointed out, is the seed you plant a tree? I think the first trimester is very reasonable. Longer even in special circumstances. People ask when you were born, no one asks when were you conceived. And I too know some blacks who are doing very well, but the majority are not. Black do have a disadvantage from birth.

As for China, I think they made the right decision. They saved a country. You of course are welcome to disagree, but I notice America didn't offer to pick up the cost of alternative ideas.

As for public opinion, the momentum hasn't changed. Did you read my post? 77% don't have a problem with the first trimester. I agree, few people favor abortion in the last trimester except for unusual circumstances. I'm not a fan of the last trimester either. But nothing wrong with the first trimester IMHO. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that it's fine until the 22 week. That's more than 5 months... Until that time, the fetus has no rights.

Where in the Constitution is the power for SCOTUS to make the determination of when life begins? What is the Constitutional basis for the holding of Roe?

While I will leave the legal arguments to you and Bigdog (I learn a lot) I'll take a stab at it.

"It is thus apparent that, at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy."

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 [p153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation."

"On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment"

"All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

"It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith."

"It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family." (as a disclaimer, I am protestant)

"It has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

"for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State."

I agree entirely that there is a right to privacy found in the 9th Amendment.

"On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Well, duh. The states had spoken through the elective branches of government. It is not for the courts to determine when life begins. Furthermore, what on earth is the logic of citing previous laws when the current laws said otherwise?

"All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

The reasoning in this passage simply supports the proposition that abortion is morally permissable; it has nothing to do with whether it is Constitutionally compelled!

"In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

So exactly what were the laws that the SCOTUS voided here saying?!?

What of the intriguing passage cited by Sen. Rand Paul to the effect that Congress was free to define the beginning of human life? (see Post #35 by me in this thread) Why is this respect not granted to the various states in question?

Of course there is a right to privacy. Not an absolute right. Healthcare tromps all over it, as do most other government programs, like income taxation.

In the case of abortion, there is another life involved. The courts, the laws, the legislators need to balance that all out. Missing is where the USSC got jurisdiction. Missing in the Roe v Wade decision is what changes in trimesters. Is there a right, is there not a right, what interest are you balancing it against? Nothing? That false ambiguity demonstrates pretty easily that they were out of their realm in 'interpreting' law.

Rachel acknowledged it is alive and human, even JDN started to by introducing his qualifier in bold in his last post, 'not a person in the whole sense'.

A person yes, but not in the whole sense. Agreed. I could say that about quite a few people. A fetus at its various points is certainly an underdeveloped-developing person. For whom is that not true?

The science is settled. Denying what is in there is alive and human is of no use.

"In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

So exactly what were the laws that the SCOTUS voided here saying?!?

Texas was trying to say that life begins at conception. SCOTUS said no; until the baby is viable, able to live outside the mother, it is not viable and therefore not a "person". As an interesting note, the Jewish faith takes this further and states that life is not a person until born (see reference below).

What of the intriguing passage cited by Sen. Rand Paul to the effect that Congress was free to define the beginning of human life? (see Post #35 by me in this thread) Why is this respect not granted to the various states in question?

I'm not the attorney in the room, but my guess is he is referring to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

"SECTION 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [p160] "

So instead the Court overrules the States and imposes its own answer?!? This makes absolutely no sense!

"What of the intriguing passage cited by Sen. Rand Paul to the effect that Congress was free to define the beginning of human life? (see Post #35 by me in this thread) Why is this respect not granted to the various states in question?

JDN: I'm not the attorney in the room, but my guess is he is referring to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution

I really wish I had taken the time to paste from the RP newsletter in question, but IIRC he said there was langauge in Roe that allowed for Congress to define the beginning of human life. As I now quickly skim Roe however I can find no such language and so until I do I will drop this particular point.

I tend to shy away from discussion of abortion, however some points about Roe:

1. Blackmun never said that the right to privacy (or abortion) was absolute. He said the right to privacy is fundamental. This has particular meaning in constitutional law.

2. Related to that, he states that only when the state has a "compelling" reason to limit a fundamental right can it do so. And, according to the trimester framework, which is based on the viability of the fetus, state interest does become compelling. So, there is a distinction with "changes in trimesters."

3. Blackmun goes to great lengths to discuss both the justiciablity of the SCOTUS to decide the case and the personhood of the fetus. You can believe or not, but ignoring it is disingenuous to a discuss of the case. (And, I would add that his discussion of the common law tradition is worth reading.)

4. I do not recall a point in which Bluckmon says that Congress plays a role, as Guro suggests that Rand Paul stated (implied?). I searched just now, and could not find a section either. However, it is late and I may be overlooking it.

"1. Blackmun never said that the right to privacy (or abortion) was absolute. He said the right to privacy is fundamental. This has particular meaning in constitutional law."

AGREED. However, and I suspect we are all agreed on this too, one cannot kill simply because it is done privately. The question presented is two fold. When does human life begin? And who gets to make the determination? Where in the C. does it give the power to make this decision to SCOTUS?

"Related to that, he states that only when the state has a "compelling" reason to limit a fundamental right can it do so. And, according to the trimester framework, which is based on the viability of the fetus, state interest does become compelling. So, there is a distinction with "changes in trimesters.""

The fetus is "viable" unless it is killed. It receives nutrition and oxygen via the umbilical cord before birth and via nutrition via the breast after. If you cut if off from these things of course it dies. Heck, if you don't provide for a two year old, he dies.

"3. Blackmun goes to great lengths to discuss both the justiciablity of the SCOTUS to decide the case and the personhood of the fetus. You can believe or not, but ignoring it is disingenuous to a discuss of the case. (And, I would add that his discussion of the common law tradition is worth reading.)"

An interesting discussion no doubt as to why a legislature might pass a law along the lines of the criteria of Roe, but for me the question remains-- this is a matter for the states to determine through the democratically elected branches. IMO Roe is the beginning of the culture wars in this country. Regardless of how one stands on what one thinks the law should say on this subject, I think we should all agree that social conservatives are understandably enraged at this cheat via judicial imperialism. The way for this issue to be decided is through the democratic process and with Roe, SCOTUS sorely tested the social fabric's respect for law.

"4. I do not recall a point in which Bluckmon says that Congress plays a role, as Guro suggests that Rand Paul stated (implied?). I searched just now, and could not find a section either. However, it is late and I may be overlooking it."

Rand Paul's assertion (or whomever wrote the fundraising e-letter on his behalf) is so sideways to the general understanding that I was stunned when I read it. In that I have no idea how to find it, I hereby drop this point entirely-- though I would appreciate it if the group here were to keep an eye out for this notion that SCOTUS has said that Congress could define the beginning of human life.

1. The first point was made to a prior post that stated that a right to abortion os absolute, or words to that effect. Again, I am not stating that the Constitution gives the power of this decision to the SCOTUS. I am reminding you that Blackmun takes great pains to answer the questions you pose. The viabilty question is medical, no matter how you word it. Not matter the availability of a breast for nutrition after birth, an 18 week fetus is not going to live. 23 weeks is exceedingly rare, and it will take much more care than simply an available breast. And I have watched this scenario play out, more closely than I would have liked.

2. "...with Roe, SCOTUS sorely tested the social fabric's respect for law (as it relates to the states' legislatures role on deciding abortion)." Only sort of. There are plenty of other cases in reaction to state laws related to abortion. As I often tell my students, when the USSC decides a case, it really only opens more questions. Look at the Court's decisions in Webster and Casey for example. In fact, whether you agree with him or not, by the time Casey was decided, Blackmun (the author of the Roe opinion, of course), felt like the Court had largely gutted his opinion. States retain a great deal of power in the abortion arena. States need not provide funding. States, as Roe explicitly notes, can outright ban abortions in the final trimester, and have increased power to do so anytime after 24 weeks. States have tried parental notification, spousal notification, waiting periods and many, many other restrictions. Several of those have been found to pass constitutional muster.

I will agree to that. In the context of other applications of the right of privacy, I would be most appreciative of a written expression of what that right is.

"The viabilty question is medical, no matter how you word it."

Yes, but: a) the point underlying the question of viability is the acknowledge that the unborn is a distinct human life, and b) medical viability is perhaps a moving target unlike trimesters on a calendar. Pro-life extremists argue life begins at the instant of conception. Pro-choice extremists argue there is no life in there of any value or notice until the moment of birth. Blackmun is saying (my read on what is posted) that life begins at viability. That is as good of a political or logical compromise as any other, but if I read Crafty's question correctly, where did the Judicial Branch of the federal government derive the authority to make that determination and settle the matter for the states?

While 5 people including Blackmun looked at viability, I doubt in early 1970s imagery they were also able to look at the formation of arms legs and a beating heart at 6 weeks that also could influence what one thinks medically about when life begins.

BD, allow me to take another stab at this. My point is that the embryo/fetus is viable if left where it belongs, which is in the mother. Taking it from there removes it from the umbilical cord, its proper source of sustenance (nutrition and oxygen) and the womb, its proper environment. Doing so kills it. Separating it from nutrition and oxygen at any age kills too, yet we do not use that to say that you or I are not viable.

Not only is "viability" as defined by Blackmun a standard that moves with technology (in contrast to the timeless concepts of the Constitution and Natural Law) it is a POLITICAL compromise.

"That is as good of a political or logical compromise as any other, but if I read Crafty's question correctly, where did the Judicial Branch of the federal government derive the authority to make that determination and settle the matter for the states?"

Exactly so!

Yes the murky penumbras of Roe left some determinations to the States, but the logic of the point is but an offering of political compromise. ALL of Roe's progeny are unnecessary and should be aborted -- the proper decision in Roe was to leave it all to the States. My challenge question remains: Where in the Constitution do the Federal Courts and/or SCOTUS get the right to determine the beginning of human life? Particularly so when the democratically elected branches of the sovereign states have spoken!

I understand your point, and again urge you to look to the Blackmun opinion. He spent hundreds of words explaining why he felt the case was justiciable. I'm not trying to agree or disagree, I am only stating that the argument should focus there. So, for example, he looks to common law history. This is an idea that you (GC and DMG) tend to like. So, where, exactly, does Blackmun go wrong with this application? He moves beyond the right of a woman's "right to chose" and looks at the rights of the doctor. Do you not agree that doctors have rights? I only am trying to get you to address the Blackmun opinion, not directly argue with you.

"...viability" as defined by Blackmun a standard that moves with technology..." With this I agree completely, and is a source of my frustration with the decision in question.

Unmarried, unemployed and 3 kids already, the man who had impregnated her had just been sent to jail for robbery. She ought to have the freedom to kill off at least one of the others too. Aren't they all equally unwanted?

Morally equal and far more effective might be to kill off the mother before it happens again.

It's puzzling that people are shocked that, on abortion, the Republican platform contains no exceptions for rape or incest or to protect the health of a woman.

"The question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time." That sweet reason is from the 1976 Republican platform, three years after Roe vs. Wade, which ruled that a woman's right to abortion is protected by the Constitution. The platform went on in the same moral-relativist vein. "There are those in our Party who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision," and those who want that decision "changed by a constitutional amendment." Just to leave no one out, it went on to note that "others have yet to take a position" while others still fall somewhere in between.

It called for "public dialogue on abortion," and then, in a surprising and unexplained reversal, endorsed a "constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children."

In 1980, the platform's abortion plank conceded "the complex nature of its various issues" and "differing views on this question among Americans in general." Nevertheless, "we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children."

By 1984: "The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

In addition, the 1984 platform called for "the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

Ever since then, with various rhetorical flourishes, the platform has contained the same four elements: 1) the unborn child has a "fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed"; 2) endorsement of a "human life" constitutional amendment; 3) a call for judges who "respect human life"; and 4) new laws to "make clear" that the fetus is a "person" under the 14th Amendment. Paul Ryan has co-sponsored such legislation, declaring that the fetus is a "person."

So it's a bit puzzling that people are so shocked and dismayed that this year's GOP platform contains no exceptions for rape or incest or to protect the health — or even the life — of a woman. The anti-abortion plank of the Republican platform has never contained an explicit exception for any of these situations.

The Human Life Amendment could mean anything because it doesn't exist yet. It could contain exceptions for rape or to save a woman's life or some other reason. But the 14th Amendment is another matter. It is the constitutional provision that guarantees "equal protection of the laws." It was enacted after the Civil War for the benefit of the freed black slaves.

Courts have been struggling with it ever since. Almost everything the government (or anybody else, for that matter) does is a discrimination of some kind. What other groups does the Constitution protect? Obviously the laws cannot treat criminals equally with the innocent and must be able to discriminate between the old who collect Social Security and the young who pay into it. And so on.

If the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children, this essentially means that the government cannot discriminate between the born and the unborn — that is, between you and a fetus. It certainly cannot allow a fetus to be killed just because it is the result of rape.

In fact, if a fetus is a "person" entitled to "equal protection of the laws," the state would have to prosecute a woman for obtaining an abortion exactly as it would prosecute a mother who murdered her young children. That's equal protection of the laws. States that allow capital punishment, in which a woman could be executed for procuring and paying money to hire a killer to murder her children, would have to follow the same policy regarding a woman who procured and paid for an abortion.

James Bopp, a Republican activist lawyer who wrote the 2012 platform's anti-abortion language, claims that it doesn't preclude exceptions for rape, etc. He says there are "numerous exceptions" to the right to life, even for people who have been born. For example, if a woman's life is in danger, "it's analytically close to self-defense" and self-defense can be justifiable homicide. Or you can be excused for shooting a fleeing felon, he notes.

Of course the fetus, if it is to be considered a person, is an innocent person, and there is no "justifiable" reason to kill an innocent person.

Does the Republican Party actually believe that women who have abortions should be treated like criminals, or at best as committing "justifiable homicide"? Of course not. But that, whether they like it or not, is the necessary implication of the obscure language in the party's platform.

Michael Kinsley, a former editorial page editor of the Los Angeles Times, is a Bloomberg View columnist.

I would note that, IIRC, MR favors an exception for rape and incest (and mother's life in danger?) The Jon Stewart show had some fun interviewing delegates and tweaking them about the cognitive dissonance of it all.

As one who has done decades of conventions I can tell you R. platforms are normally a consolation prize for the activists who just accepted endorsement of a RINO. It doesnt tell what future law will be or even what Republican votes will be. Republican platforms make nice fodder for people like Kinsley.

Banning abortion after rape ignores the fact that the woman did not in any consentual way take on the responsibility of carrying and caring for that life.

The tragedy of abortion is that 98% plus are being killed for no good reason. In the case of rape, another life, the rape victim has a competing right to not have the victimization continue.

Some very wise words over on Power of The Word thread could be applied here IMO, unless one argues the little developing one is plant or inanimate. Earlier we determined that a fetus is a live human but of lower value than a born person.-------------"What is the true test of a moral person? How do you know that someone is truly a good person, and not just preaching?

One test is to observe the way they treat subordinates. Someone who can show concern for those who are lower and more helpless than themselves is a person who is truly good.

...the ban on eating the limb of a live animal is a general law which commands us to be kind to animals. In fact, Jewish law prohibits inflicting unnecessary pain on animals....There is a clear hierarchy here. We are not equal with G‑d, and animals are not equal to humans. The myth of equality is necessary only to protect the weak in a world devoid of morality. But moral beings with a clear code of ethics can recognize the innate inequality of nature without exploiting it. Being higher means being more responsible. Nature is here to serve us, but we are here to serve G‑d, and that means treating all His creatures, equal or not, with respect....An additional reason mentioned by the Sages for human treatment of animals is that it cultivates humane conduct toward other people, while inhumane treatment of animals carries the danger of inculcating insensitivity toward others. (Research confirms a connection between people who torture animals as youngsters and those who are violent as adults, though there is no way to tell if there is a causal relationship.)

The Sefer Hachinuch (596) writes: "Among the motivations for this commandment is to accustom ourselves to delicate souls, choosing the straight path and adhering to it, and seeking mercy and kindness. Once we obtain this habit, then even toward animals, which were created to serve us, we will show concern."And Nachmanides writes: "The reason for refraining [from taking the eggs in the presence of the mother] is to teach us the quality of mercy, and not to act cruelty. For cruelty [toward animals then] spreads into the soul of man [and expresses itself toward people as well]."

Some very wise words over on Power of The Word thread could be applied here IMO, unless one argues the little developing one is plant or inanimate. Earlier we determined that a fetus is a live human but of lower value than a born person.-------------"What is the true test of a moral person? How do you know that someone is truly a good person, and not just preaching?

One test is to observe the way they treat subordinates. Someone who can show concern for those who are lower and more helpless than themselves is a person who is truly good.

...the ban on eating the limb of a live animal is a general law which commands us to be kind to animals. In fact, Jewish law prohibits inflicting unnecessary pain on animals....There is a clear hierarchy here. We are not equal with G‑d, and animals are not equal to humans. The myth of equality is necessary only to protect the weak in a world devoid of morality. But moral beings with a clear code of ethics can recognize the innate inequality of nature without exploiting it. Being higher means being more responsible. Nature is here to serve us, but we are here to serve G‑d, and that means treating all His creatures, equal or not, with respect....An additional reason mentioned by the Sages for human treatment of animals is that it cultivates humane conduct toward other people, while inhumane treatment of animals carries the danger of inculcating insensitivity toward others. (Research confirms a connection between people who torture animals as youngsters and those who are violent as adults, though there is no way to tell if there is a causal relationship.)

The Sefer Hachinuch (596) writes: "Among the motivations for this commandment is to accustom ourselves to delicate souls, choosing the straight path and adhering to it, and seeking mercy and kindness. Once we obtain this habit, then even toward animals, which were created to serve us, we will show concern."And Nachmanides writes: "The reason for refraining [from taking the eggs in the presence of the mother] is to teach us the quality of mercy, and not to act cruelty. For cruelty [toward animals then] spreads into the soul of man [and expresses itself toward people as well]."

Bigdog questioned: "What does the fact that all of the "rape" congressional candidates lost (Mourdock and Akin, the latter decisively in an election that he once had 7-9% lead in)?"

BBG Wrote: "Will it drive unmarried women into the statist camp over abortion, or will it embrace liberty?" ..."I entertain no illusions: most who oppose abortion will be unable to support a message of unadulterated liberty."

CCP: "What policies, stands, and attitudes are faulty? ... Because a few evangelicals made foolish political comments about abortion?"

Doug (me) from Media Issues: "What bill or constitutional amendment that might pass in the Senate would ban abortion for pregnancies resulting from rape? There are none." ... "Rape abortions make up about .05% of all abortions. The non-existent controversy makes a useful diversion from focusing on convenience abortions that comprise more than 98% of abortions"... ------What have we learned?

1) Gallup May 2012 (from further up the thread): Pro-choice 41%, Pro-life 50%. Speaking in general terms about respect for life including the unborn is not bad politics and did not cost Republicans the election. To BBG, pro-life conservatism defeats 'unadulterated liberty' by about 50-1 in the electoral marketplace. The question comes back to liberty for whom? Libertarians can choose which party generally supports more liberty. Pro-lifers don't give up that view over budget issues or political advantage. It is mostly hard-care liberals who fully deny any value to unborn life, while the politically successful ones utter things like personally opposed, safe, legal and RARE to satisfy their own constituents.

2) Crafty wrote in 2009, "The correct solution is to let the democratic republican principle work it out in each of the 50 states." Blackmun may not concur, but having conservatives, libertarians, Republicans and even independents agree that it is a matter best left to the states is a political compromise that can remove it from the unresolvable front page of our federal elections.

3) The tragedy of abortion is that millions of developing human beings are killed for no good reason; 98% for convenience-related reasons of the mother is what I have drawn out of published Planned Parenthood surveys. In the case of rape, 'no good reason' IS NOT TRUE. This should not require further explanation(!) but we try to make a crime victim whole which does not include a forced, lifelong link of parenting with her rapist. If a pro-life extremist does not understand or agree from a religious perspective, then understand it from a political perspective - or don't run for high office with major party endorsement.

4) If Roe were ever overturned (this election moved us a LONG way in the other direction), if the issue were ever returned to the states, or to the extent as Bigdog points out some of that power is already at the state level, Republicans screening their candidates from now on need to make sure and make it publicly known that abortion services will continue to be available in 50 states for rape, incest and life of the mother.

5) Pro-lifers should exercise their own right of privacy when you ponder the theoretical value of a human life conceived in rape. Doing so with reporters in a campaign is not how you advance a pro-life cause, save any unborn lives, win the women's vote or win any election in even a most conservative pro-life state.

"4) If Roe were ever overturned (this election moved us a LONG way in the other direction), if the issue were ever returned to the states, or to the extent as Bigdog points out some of that power is already at the state level, Republicans screening their candidates from now on need to make sure and make it publicly known that abortion services will continue to be available in 50 states for rape, incest and life of the mother."

A two part question:

a) WHY do most of us include incest along with rape as a valid reason for abortion?

b) Is it not that incest leads to children with birth defects?

c) Therefore should we not be restating the standard as "rape and/or birth defects" to be logically consistent?

1) Gallup May 2012 (from further up the thread): Pro-choice 41%, Pro-life 50%. Speaking in general terms about respect for life including the unborn is not bad politics and did not cost Republicans the election. To BBG, pro-life conservatism defeats 'unadulterated liberty' by about 50-1 in the electoral marketplace. The question comes back to liberty for whom? Libertarians can choose which party generally supports more liberty. Pro-lifers don't give up that view over budget issues or political advantage. It is mostly hard-care liberals who fully deny any value to unborn life, while the politically successful ones utter things like personally opposed, safe, legal and RARE to satisfy their own constituents.

I'm assuming the "50-1" is a typo as it certainly isn't reflected in any polling I've encountered. And despite any national polling to the contrary, the "War on Women" meme--which was used as a placeholder for abortion--swung significant segments of some constituencies. As someone who lives in a swing state I can assure you that Romney's pronouncements on Planned Parenthood and abortion where a theme relentlessly hammered on the airwaves; I don't think the opposition would be doing so if they did not think it would bear fruit.

(An aside: correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Planned Parenthood a private organization that receives public monies? The Dem. campaign seemed to purposely elevate PP to some sort of entitlement status; the Repubs had no effective response. It galled me that all the PP vilification occurred in an unanswered vacuum).

With that said, 50/41 national polling data speaks to a simplistic view of the electoral process. Grass roots activists tend to nominate candidates that then have to swing to the middle to get elected. Though there is plenty of nuance here, broadly stated the Repubs tend to nominate folks the Dems can cast as right wing abortion zealots, and that ability costs elections. Do you imagine this dynamic will change in the future or had folks who want to send statists packing best game out solutions?

Indeed, here's where the game gets pretty grim from my perspective: much of what is wrong with this nation is the results of a decades long statist evolution that's becoming ever more entrenched, with the alternatives, if not being flat out statist lite, at least containing statist litmus tests at the activist/nomination level. Where abortion is concerned most who would make that a litmus test would require statist structure enough to then enforce the proscription. Where security hawks are concerned anything that does not include an internal statist security structure is a non-starter. For drug zealots, anything that does contain draconian statist prohibition strictures won't work. And so on. The net effect is that every electoral battle becomes one over the degree of statism, with the hard core statists seizing on statist lite aspects of the opposition and then thrashing 'em over it.

Perhaps the lame idealism I'm always trying to disavow is gumming up my thinking, but should today's statism really be that hard to fight? Described in all it's folly by folks unimpeded by statist lite banners it really shouldn't be difficult to provide stark contrasts. It took generations to get to the current statist mess, and will likely require a similar time frame to cast off statist vestiges, but if the fight is worth having it's worth beginning sooner rather than later, and if it's worth starting it's worth winning. I don't see a winning path that embraces statist lite impulses, as such I think statism needs to be rejected in all it's forms if we are to successfully move toward a national ethos the framers would recognize.